Cochrane News

Cochrane seeks Support Officer

1 month 3 weeks ago

Location: Flexible location (remote working) – contract type dependent on location.
Specifications: 1 Jan to 31 July 2022. Fixed-term contract if successful applicant based in UK, Germany or Denmark. Consultancy contract in other locations.
Hours: Part time 22.5 hours per week.
Salary: £30,000 per annum (pro-rated to part time).
Application Closing Date: Monday 13 December (Midnight GMT).

This role is an exciting opportunity to use your communication and problem-solving skills to make a difference in the field of health care research.  

The Cochrane Support team is the first point of contact for the international Cochrane community. We provide technical and user support to Cochrane editorial teams and review authors; and handle enquiries from members of the public about Cochrane’s work.

We pride ourselves on our timely and coordinated support service, covering a broad range of areas including Cochrane review-writing software, editorial processing and publication, Cochrane Account login, membership, training, and volunteering opportunities.

The team works closely with Cochrane’s Central Editorial Service and Editorial and Methods Department, as well as IT Services, to ensure accurate, consistent responses to queries on Cochrane technology, policies and methods.

Cochrane is a global, independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making vast amounts of research evidence useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by synthesizing research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed. Our work is recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information.

For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here.  The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples. Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.

  • Deadline for applications: Monday 13 December (12 midnight GMT)
  • Interviews to be held on: w/c 20 December 2021 (times to be confirmed)
  • If you have any questions or would like an informal chat about the role please contact Lorna via recruitment@cochrane.org
  • Apply here
Monday, November 29, 2021 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

Cochrane International Mobility - Raphaela Mayerhofer

1 month 4 weeks ago

Cochrane is made up of 11,000 members and over 67,000 supporters come from more than 130 countries, worldwide. Our volunteers and contributors are researchers, health professionals, patients, carers, people passionate about improving health outcomes for everyone, everywhere.

Getting involved in Cochrane’s work means becoming part of a global community. The Cochrane International Mobility programme connects successful applicants with a placement in a host Cochrane Group, learning more about the production, use, and knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews. The prgramme offers opportunities for learning and training not only for participants but also for host staff.

In this series, we profile those that have participated in the Cochrane International Mobility Program and learn more about their experiences.

Name: Raphaela Mayerhofer
Location:
Stockholm, Sweden
CIM location:
Cochrane Austria

How did you first learn about Cochrane?
Cochrane is a household name in my field, it must have been many years ago when I first heard about it

What was your experience with Cochrane International Mobility?
Even though my stay at Cochrane Austria was only four weeks long, I learned incredibly much. To make the most of my time, the team made sure I could join ongoing projects right away. I had the chance to participate in ongoing systematic reviews and rapid reviews, and work on projects assessing evidence synthesis methods. CIM gave me the opportunity to sharpen my skills and fueled my enthusiasm for evidence synthesis.

What are you doing now in relation to your Cochrane International Mobility experience?
I’m currently preparing a workshop to share what I learned with faculty members at my university.

Do you have any words of advice to anyone considering a Cochrane International Mobility experience?
Find a Cochrane Center that specializes in what interests you to make the most of it!

Wednesday, November 24, 2021
Lydia Parsonson

Cochrane seeks Director of Development

1 month 4 weeks ago

Specifications: Full Time (Permanent)
Salary: £85,000 per annum
Location: Flexible
Application Closing Date:  19 December 2021

Cochrane is a global, independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making vast amounts of research evidence useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by synthesizing research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed. Our work is recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. An understanding of Cochrane’s work and health research more generally is an advantage, but not essential.

We are now looking to recruit our first Director of Development, whose role will be to work with the global community to grow our fundraising income substantially in the coming years.  As a member of the executive leadership team, they will lead the Development Directorate and establish a fundraising operation that works collaboratively to deliver significant global income growth.

Key to success in this role will be the development and implementation of fundraising, marketing, communications, and engagement and influencing strategies – as well as understanding and ideally experience of international fundraising. As such, we are seeking an ambitious and creative individual who relishes a challenge, loves collaborative working, delivers results and has extensive experience of successfully delivering strategy.

The majority of Cochrane Central Executive staff are located in London, UK, however flexible location and/or working arrangement are possible for the right candidate.

How to apply
For further information on the role and how to apply, please click here.  The deadline to receive your application is by 19 December 2021.  The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples.

First interviews likely to be held week beginning 10 January 2022

Tuesday, November 23, 2021 Category: Jobs
Lydia Parsonson

The Centre for Epidemic Intervention Research seeks researchers - Oslo, Norway

2 months ago

The Centre for Epidemic Intervention Research at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, located in Oslo, Norway,  is currently seeking applicants for the following positions:

The overall mission for the newly established centre is to produce more and better evidence on the effects of public health and social interventions, and non-pharmacological infection control measures, specifically. This also includes adverse consequences. The centre will collaborate with researchers, institutions, organisations, and stakeholders both nationally and internationally. The centre works closely with the World Health Organization's intiative to strengthen the evidence base for decisions about public health and social measures.

Application deadline 15 December 2021.

Friday, November 19, 2021 Category: Jobs
Muriah Umoquit

Using patient questionnaires for improving clinical management and outcomes

2 months ago

In this interview with lead author Christopher Gibbons, we find out more about the recently published review,  Routine provision of information on patient-reported outcome measures to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.

Tell us about this review
The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out whether healthcare workers who receive information from questionnaires completed by their patients give better health care and whether their patients have better health. We collected and analysed all relevant studies.

What did you find out?
Patient questionnaire responses fed back to health workers and patients may result in moderate benefits for patient\provider communication and small benefits for patients' quality of life. Healthcare workers probably make and record more diagnoses and take more notes. The intervention probably makes little or no difference for patient's general perceptions of their health, social functioning, and pain. There appears to be no impact on physical and mental functioning, and fatigue. Our confidence in these results is limited by the quality and number of included studies for each outcome.

What was studied in the review?
When receiving health care, patients are not always asked about how they feel, either about their physical, mental or social health. This can be a problem as knowing how the patient is feeling might help to make decisions about diagnosis and the course of the treatment. One possible solution is to ask the patients to complete questionnaires about their health, and then give that information to the healthcare workers and to patients.



What are the main results of the review?
We found 116 studies (49,785 participants), all of which were from high income countries. We found that feeding back patient questionnaire responses to healthcare workers and patients probably slightly improves quality of life and increases communication between patients and their doctors, but probably does not make a lot of difference to social functioning. We are not sure of the impact on physical and mental functioning or fatigue of feeding back patient questionnaire responses as the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low. The intervention probably increases diagnosis and note taking. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to Patient reported outcomes measures (PROM) completion.
 
What would you like to see happen next to provide more evidence in this area?
I would like to see more large, high quality, cluster randomized clinical trials that increase the evidence base for the intervention that use Computerized Adaptive Testing in the measurement of patient reported outcomes. In these interventions, the information which is fed-back combines standardized and individualized measurement, these randomize patients and clinicians to different modalities of feed-back interventions and recipients (including patient only, patient and professional, professional only).

Outcomes of interest include:

  • adverse effects
  • general health perceptions,
  • specific symptoms, (cough, insomnia, nausea, anorexia, constipation, diarrhoea),
  • clinicians ratings of severity,
  • counselling,
  • different types of visits, admissions and their length,
  • patient physician relationship,
  • unmet patient needs,
  • quality of care and costs;
  • and that focus on people with multimorbidity

Further research on the mechanisms by which the intervention operates is needed.

Wednesday, November 24, 2021
Lydia Parsonson

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review

2 months 1 week ago

This review provides insight into the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

While there are limitations to this review, the review demonstrates that a range of different measures can be effective at reducing COVID-19 transmission, especially when multiple interventions are implemented together. Importantly, the review demonstrates that schools can stay open (or reopen) safely when prevention measures are implemented effectively. The effectiveness of interventions is influenced by many things, including the levels of community transmission. Given the rapid and widespread advancements in prevention and containment measures, most notably, the COVID-19 vaccines and increases in testing capacity, as well as the rise of more transmissible variants of the virus, an update to this review may yield very different results.

What was studied in the review?
In order to reduce the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, many governments and societies put mitigation measures in place in schools. However, we do not know whether these measures work with regards to reducing the spread of the virus, or how these measures affect other aspects of life, such as education, the economy or society as a whole.

Key messages
Reopening schools or keeping schools open while having a broad range of measures in place can reduce transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19. Such measures can also reduce the number of people who will need to go to hospital due to developing COVID-19. However very little is known about other consequences of these measures, such as those linked to education, resources, and physical or mental health, as this knowledge is mostly based on studies modelling the real world. More studies set in the real world using real-world data are needed.

Lead author Shari Krishnaratne explains:

“This review provides insight into the effectiveness of measures implemented in schools to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst the review addresses a very important question there are limitations to the evidence it provides. We searched for studies for the review in December 2020, at a time when there was a lack of real-world evidence. As such, most of the studies included in this review use modelling. This review therefore shows an overall absence of real-world evidence about the effectiveness of these measures. However, there is enough evidence from the modelling studies and in other reviews such as one on travel measures for us to have some confidence that there is likely to be a positive effect on transmission, but how an intervention works in one location might not be the same as in another.
 
There are limitations to the evidence, but it does suggest that schools can stay open (or reopen) safely when prevention measures are implemented effectively. The effectiveness of interventions is influenced by many things, including the levels of community transmission. Given the rapid and widespread advancements in prevention and containment measures, most notably, the COVID-19 vaccines and increases in testing capacity, as well as the rise of more transmissible variants of the virus, an update to this review may yield very different results.”

What are measures implemented in the school setting?
Measures in the school setting can be grouped into the following four broad categories.

  1. Measures reducing the opportunity for contacts: by reducing the number of students in a class or a school, opening certain school types only (for example primary schools) or by creating a schedule by which students attend school on different days or in different weeks, the face-to-face contact between students can be reduced.
  2. Measures making contacts safer: by putting measures in place such as face masks, improving ventilation by opening windows or using air purifiers, cleaning, handwashing, or modifying activities like sports or music, contacts can be made safer.
  3. Surveillance and response measures: screening for symptoms or testing sick or potentially sick students, or teachers, or both, and putting them into isolation (for sick people) or quarantine (for potentially sick people).
  4. Multicomponent measures: measures from categories 1, 2 and 3 are combined.

What is the aim of the review?
The authors aimed to find out which measures implemented in the school setting allow schools to safely reopen, stay open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did we do?
They searched for studies that looked at the impact of these types of measures in the school setting on the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, the impact on the healthcare system (i.e. how many hospital beds are needed), as well as important social aspects (i.e. how often students attended school). The studies could focus on students, teachers and other school staff, as well as on families and the whole community. They could use real-life data (observational studies) or data from computer-generated simulations (modelling studies).

View the video in German, French, or Spanish

What are the main results of the review?
The authors found 38 relevant studies. Most of these were modelling studies (33 studies). Five studies used real-world data. Twenty studies were conducted in North or South America, 16 in Europe and two in China.

Below we summarise the main findings by category.

  1. Measures reducing the opportunity for contacts
    The authors found 23 modelling studies assessing measures to reduce the opportunity for contacts. All studies showed reductions in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 and the use of the healthcare system. Some studies also showed a reduction in the number of days spent in school due to the intervention.
  2. Measures making contacts safer
    The authors found 11 modelling studies and two real-world studies looking at measures, such as mask wearing in schools, cleaning, handwashing, and ventilation. Five of these studies combined multiple measures, which means we cannot see which specific measures worked and which did not. Most studies showed reductions in the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19; some studies, however, showed mixed or no effects.
  3. Surveillance and response measures
    We found 13 modelling studies and one real-world study assessing surveillance and response measures. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Most studies showed results in favour of the intervention, however some showed mixed or no effects
  4. Multicomponent measures
    They found three studies that looked at multicomponent interventions, where it was not possible to determine the effect of each individual intervention. These included one modelling study and two real-world studies. These studies assessed physical distancing, modification of activities, cancellation of sports or music classes, testing, exemption of high-risk students, handwashing, and face masks. Most studies showed reduced transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19, however some showed mixed or no effects.

How confident are we in the findings of this review?
Confidence in these results is limited. Most studies used models, that is, they estimated the effects of the interventions rather than observing outcomes. As the models are built on assumptions about how the virus spreads and how people behave, we lack real-world evidence. Many studies were published as 'preprints' without undergoing rigorous checks of published studies, which further limits confidence. Also, the studies were very different from each other (for example, with regards to the levels of transmission in the community).

How up to date is this evidence?
The evidence is up-to-date to December 2020. It is expected this review will be updated in Spring 2022.

Monday, January 17, 2022
Lydia Parsonson

Special Collection - Influenza: evidence from Cochrane Reviews

2 months 1 week ago

Cochrane Library Special Collections provide a round-up of up-to-date Cochrane evidence on a specific topic. This Special Collection contains Cochrane Reviews summarizing data on the benefits and harms of several interventions for preventing and treating influenza. The Cochrane Reviews look at  vaccines, antiviral drugs, and physical interventions, such as the use of masks and hand washing.

This evidence for physical interventions may help inform policies and practices relevant to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. These comprehensive reviews provide valuable information for patients, doctors, and healthcare decision-makers about what steps to take or interventions to use to prevent influenza or aid its treatment.

Thursday, December 9, 2021
Muriah Umoquit

The Cochrane Library App

10 months ago

Monthly issues will cease after Issue 12 (December), 2021. All downloaded content will continue to be available within the app.

Thank you to everyone who has downloaded and read Cochrane Reviews via the app.

The Cochrane Library App presents the latest up-to-date evidence from the Cochrane Library in a convenient, easy to navigate format which provides you with relevant, accessible research, when you need it, from the world’s leading experts in evidence-informed health care.

All content in the app is free and new issues will download regularly.

Our monthly issues feature a hand-picked selection of Cochrane Systematic Reviews, specifically chosen by the Editor-in-chief.  Abridged Cochrane Reviews provide the best possible tablet and phone reading experience and they are downloadable for reading offline. The Bookmark feature allows you to create your own special collection of Cochrane Reviews across issues. Additionally, the title page for every review includes a link to the full version of the review available on the Cochrane Library.

Hello, and welcome to the December 2021 issue of the Cochrane Library app.

This month’s edition covers a variety of topics including exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease, decision coaching for making healthcare decisions, rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures, antiemetics to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy,  antibiotics for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children, prevention of dementia and cognitive decline, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for women undergoing breast surgery, and vitamin C supplementation for prevention and treatment of pneumonia.

Our main review this month is ‘Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use’. Rotavirus is a common cause of diarrhoea, diarrhoea‐related hospital admissions, and diarrhoea‐related deaths worldwide. Authors from the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group evaluated rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO for their efficacy and safety in children.

The abridged versions of these reviews are available in this issue. Visit www.cochranelibrary.com to read the full versions.

Our monthly issues produced exclusively for the app feature a hand‐picked selection of Cochrane Systematic Reviews, specifically abridged to provide the best possible mobile reading experience. You can create your own special themed collection of Cochrane Reviews across issues in the app on topics such as occupational health by using the app’s Bookmark feature.

The title page for every review included in this and previous issues includes a link to the full version of the review available on the Cochrane Library at www.cochranelibrary.com

Friday, December 17, 2021
Muriah Umoquit

The Cochrane-Wikipedia Partnership in 2022

1 year 11 months ago

Cochrane has a commitment to producing and sharing high quality health evidence to as broad an audience as possible. Cochrane partnered in 2014 with Wikipedia, with the joint goal of improving the quality and reliability of human health-related articles that people are accessing online.

Jennifer Dawson, PhD, is a Wikipedia Consultant for Cochrane . Her role includes maintaining and building further relations with Wikipedia, connecting new editors to the Wikipedia community, and supporting requests for engagement in Wikipedia work from the Cochrane community. We interviewed Jennifer to learn more about the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership:


Why should we care about Wikipedia?
Millions of people around the world access health-related information on Wikipedia each day. Medical-related articles are available in over 286 languages on Wikipedia and often come up early on an internet search. The readership base varies broadly and includes members of the public, medical students, medical professionals, journalists, and policy makers (More info here). Given that so many people are consulting Wikipedia on a daily basis, we feel that Cochrane’s commitment to producing and sharing high quality health evidence includes sharing that evidence where people are accessing it.



How can I get involved?
Nearly half of all Cochrane Reviews are already shared on Wikipedia! Cochrane is presently the most frequently cited peer-reviewed medical journal on Wikipedia (More info here).  English Wikipedia includes over 36,000 health-related articles and there are over 3000 Cochrane reviews that are not yet shared on Wikipedia. There are two main ways you can get involved:

1.    Add new Cochrane Evidence to Wikipedia - Every three months, a new list of Cochrane Reviews to consider for Wikipedia is generated. Reviews to consider for Wikipedia are organized by Cochrane Review Group and can be access here:  Cochrane Review List (English).

2.    Ensure that the evidence already shared on Wikipedia is accurate, unbiased, and up to date. - Volunteers are needed to review what is presently shared in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles that include out dated versions of Cochrane Reviews need to be updated. Cochrane maintains a list of Reviews that need updating. This list is refreshed monthly to include recently updated Cochrane Reviews: Cochrane-Wikipedia Update Project.



How can I edit Wikipedia in languages other than English?
Cochrane has active projects in many different languages including Spanish, French, and Dutch. Please visit the “Projects” tab project page to learn more about specific projects: Cochrane-Wikipedia Projects.



How can I learn how to edit Wikipedia?
Cochrane has developed and collated numerous training resources. Our newest resource, the Wikipedian in Training Resource, is the best place to begin. This resource shares suggested first steps, ideas for how to practice editing, and an example of the general workflow of editing Wikipedia and sharing Cochrane evidence.

Jennifer can be found on Wikipedia at: JenOttawa and by email at jdawson@cochrane.org. Please visit the Cochrane-Wikipedia Project Page for more information.

Monday, January 10, 2022 Category: The difference we make
Muriah Umoquit

Cochrane Clinical Answers related to COVID-19

2 years 9 months ago

Readable, clinically-focused, actionable answers to inform point-of-care decision-making for health professionals. 

Cochrane Clinical Answers (CCAs) provide a readable, digestible, clinically-focused entry point to rigorous research from Cochrane Reviews. They are designed to be actionable and to inform point-of-care decision-making. Each CCA contains a clinical question, a short answer, and data for the outcomes from the Cochrane Review deemed most relevant to practicing healthcare professionals. The evidence is displayed in a user-friendly tabulated format that includes narratives, data, and links to graphics.

Read the CCAs for the following Special Collections:

The Following CCAs are free as part of the Special Collection on support for evidence relevant to clinical rehabilitation.

The following CCAs are free as part of the Special Collection on support for wellbeing in the healthcare workforce.

The following CCAs are free as part of our Special Collection on the remote care through telehealth.

The following CCAs are free as part of our Special Collection on the effective options for quitting smoking during the pandemic

 

The following CCAs are free as part of our Special Collection on infection control and prevention measures

The following CCAs are free as part of our Special Collection on  evidence relevant to critical care

The following CCAs are free as part of our Special Collection on regional anaesthesia to reduce drug use in anaesthesia and avoid aerosol generation

The following CCAs are free as part of our Special Collection on optimizing health in the home workspace

 

Get involved: The clinical answer is written either by a practicing clinician or by a CCA Editor, with the answer being peer-reviewed by a practicing clinician. If you would like to join the Clinical Answers authoring team, please contact the team at clinicalanswers@cochrane.org. We are specifically looking for clinicians in the following areas: respiratory medicine; care of the elderly; cardiovascular medicine; pregnancy and childbirth; neurology - especially epilepsy; infectious disease; paediatrics; rheumatology; ENT; and urology.

Learn more about Cochrane Clinical Answers and how they are created

Browse all Cochrane Clinical Answers

Read more about Cochrane's response to COVID-19 

Tuesday, January 18, 2022
Muriah Umoquit

VIDEO: What are systematic reviews?

3 years ago

A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making. 

Here is a video from Cochrane Consumers and Communication that explains what a systematic review is clearly and simply for people who may not be familiar with the concepts and terminology of systematic reviews: what they are, how researchers prepare them, and why they’re an important part of making informed decisions about health - for everyone. 

Cochrane evidence provides a powerful tool to enhance your healthcare knowledge and decision making. This video from Cochrane Sweden explains a bit about how we create health evidence, including systematic reviews, and other activities of Cochrane. 

Thursday, January 13, 2022
Anonymous

Updated review: Insufficient evidence for use of Omega-3 supplements in treating depression

6 years 2 months ago

Updated Cochrane research concludes that there is insufficient evidence for the use of Omega-3 fatty acid supplements in treating major depressive disorder.

Omega-3 fatty acids are widely thought to be essential for good health and are naturally found in fatty fish such as mackerel; other seafood; and some nuts and seeds.

Omega-3 fatty acids have been widely promoted globally for a variety of health concerns, and are readily available as an over-the-counter supplement. These supplements have hugely increased in popularity over the last decade, together with a range of other supplements including ginseng, garlic, green tea, vitamins, minerals, and herbal products.

There have been various studies that have suggested a role for Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in treating major depressive disorder. Adults with major depressive disorders are characterized by depressed mood or a lack of pleasure in previously enjoyed activities for at least two weeks, in the absence of any physical cause, that impact on everyday life.

Figures published in 2018 estimated prevalence rates for major depressive disorders of 163 million cases in 2017, and global incidence rates of 242 million cases, resulting in 33 million years lived with disability globally, an increase of 12.6% since 2007.


This updated Cochrane Review, published recently in the Cochrane Library, gathered together data from 28 randomized trials involving a total of 1944 participants. The trials investigated the impact of giving an Omega-3 fatty acid supplement in a capsule form and compared it to a dummy pill. In one study, involving 40 participants, researchers also investigated the impact of the same supplementation compared to an anti-depressant treatment.

The Cochrane authors found that, whilst people who were given Omega-3 fatty acids reported lower symptom scores than people with the dummy pill, the effect was small and there were important limitations that undermined their confidence in the results. Their analyses showed that although similar numbers of people experienced side effects, more data would be required to understand the risks of taking Omega-3 fatty acids.



Lead author Katherine Appleton from Bournemouth University said, “This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review, using the same methods as we previously used, with some refinements. The update includes 8 randomised controlled trials published since 2015, in addition to the 20 trials included in the previous review.

Our conclusions however remain unchanged. We found a small-to-modest positive effect of Omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo for depressive symptomology, but the size of this effect is unlikely to be meaningful to people with depression, and we considered the evidence on which this conclusion was based to be of low or very low quality. All studies contributing to our analyses were of direct relevance to our research question, but most of these studies are small and of low quality. We also found insufficient evidence to clearly determine the effects of omega-3 oils on negative side effects or when compared with anti-depressants.”

She added, “At present, we just don’t have enough high-quality evidence to determine the effects of Omega-3 fatty acids as a treatment for major depressive disorder. It’s important that people who suffer from depression are aware of this, so that they can make more informed choices about treatment.”

 

Tuesday, December 7, 2021
Nancy Owens
Checked
20 hours 5 minutes ago
Subscribe to Cochrane News feed